I'm just wondering is this a place for real libertarians as first named by Joseph Déjacque in the 1840s and still the only meaning of libertarian outside America.(anarchist,socialist/communist.) Or the usual right/vulgar,american meaning of libertarianism(which was a name adopted post 1960 by Rothbard etc)?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
What does this forum mean by libertarian?
- Thread starter NuGnostic
- Start date
eudaimonia
Fellowship of Reason
NuGnostic said:
It means the cool, pro-flourishing meaning of the word, which of course refers to a society with individual rights and a laissez-faire market economy.
eudaimonia,
Mark
And how is right/vulgar libertarianism cool compared to anarchism or libertarian socialism?
Right-"libertarians" simply want to move the repressive and hierarchical functions of the state onto private capitalists,they simply favour one exploitative clas other another. We true libertarians want to remove the exploiters completely.
Right-"libertarians" simply want to move the repressive and hierarchical functions of the state onto private capitalists,they simply favour one exploitative clas other another. We true libertarians want to remove the exploiters completely.
Terrywoodenpic
Oldest Heretic
Joseph Déjacque's libertarianism is virtually forgotten in europe, and the American version is little understood.
Liberalism has a far stronger and meaningful history in the UK and europe.
Unlike In the US. To be liberal is not a dirty word. Rater it has a long history of beneficial social religious and economic reform to its credit.
UK Liberals account for around a third of voters in national elections and rather more in local elections. so still have a strong voice in the country; though not the power they held throughout much of the victorian period and through to the first world war.
But the Conservative and labour parties still speak of maintaining Liberal Values in British society. So out side the Political Party meaning, Liberalism still holds a very strong position in British ethical thought.
Liberalism has a far stronger and meaningful history in the UK and europe.
Unlike In the US. To be liberal is not a dirty word. Rater it has a long history of beneficial social religious and economic reform to its credit.
UK Liberals account for around a third of voters in national elections and rather more in local elections. so still have a strong voice in the country; though not the power they held throughout much of the victorian period and through to the first world war.
But the Conservative and labour parties still speak of maintaining Liberal Values in British society. So out side the Political Party meaning, Liberalism still holds a very strong position in British ethical thought.
eudaimonia
Fellowship of Reason
NuGnostic said:
It is a libertarian meaning (though not the one you prefer), since it is pro-liberty. It may not be anti-heirarchy, but one can be in favor of liberty and tolerate some heirarchy (as long as principles of mutual consent are observed.)
If it makes you feel any better, if I were to coin a term, I wouldn't have chosen the term "libertarian". I would have prefered the word "liberal" instead, but the progressives stole it some time ago. (You don't see me whining about it, though.) I could go with "market liberal", as the Cato Institute has done. It really makes no difference to me.
I should perhaps not even call myself a libertarian, since I'm not a Rothbardian, but it is the most convenient term to use in America. If I had to select a term, it would be "eudaimonic market liberal". But isn't that a mouthful? Even the cumbersome term "libertarian" sounds better, and it means roughly want I want it to mean in America.
Are you determined to be unfriendly and make enemies? Be considerate, and we might have an interesting discussion. At least drop the word "vulgar".
There would be no exploitation whatsoever in a libertarian (or market liberal) society, since exploitation only happens through the initiation of force. Capitalists produce and trade value for value -- they don't initiate force.
Sure, if you decide not to start your own business, this may mean you'll have a "boss" in some company. This may be "heirarchical", but it doesn't equate to exploitation.
eudaimonia,
Mark
eudaimonia
Fellowship of Reason
Terrywoodenpic said:
I think that's great.
eudaimonia,
Mark
I spend alot of time on religious fundamentalist boards,were flame wars abound,I'm sorry for my rough manner.
Many anarchists/minarchist socialists use the term vulgar towards american libertarians.
The social relations inherent in capitalism make it exploitative,the means of production are centralised in the hands of a minority(through a history of force,coercion and violence and kept that way by the state.) , the majority must therefore sell its labour to the minority to survive.
The capitalist class is little better than the fuedal nobility.
Firstly how can you be true libertarians if you usurped the word over a century after we invented it?
Secondly I doubt you know anything about libertarian socialism,otherwise you would not call it utopian.
I don't so much mind the laissez faire socialistic market of the individual anarchists like Tucker,Spooner etc but they theorised that capitalism couldn't exist without the state.
But I can't see how you could call yourself libertarian and be in favour of hierarchy(ie anti-liberty.) and in favour of an exploitative class.
Plus many right-"libertarians" are usually socially conservative when you get down to it.
But I can't see how you could call yourself libertarian and be in favour of hierarchy(ie anti-liberty.) and in favour of an exploitative class.
Plus many right-"libertarians" are usually socially conservative when you get down to it.
eudaimonia
Fellowship of Reason
NuGnostic said:
And businesses must sell their products to customers to survive. Symbiosis.
The means of production are hardly centralised in the hands of a minority nowadays. We're no longer in the industrial age, with giant factories and huge numbers of blue collar workers. Small businesses and contractors are plentiful -- vastly outnumbering large corporations. And many people are well-educated and are mini-"means of production" unto themselves. People are not merely sources of labor, but of ingenuity, creativity, and the like. This is the new marketplace. The old models of society -- the old analyses -- simply don't apply any more.
eudaimonia,
Mark
eudaimonia
Fellowship of Reason
NuGnostic said:
I'm not in favor of any exploitative class. This is a conclusion you are imposing on me.
I don't think that all hierarchy is anti-liberty. If mutual consent is adhered to, there is no lack of liberty.
Some are. More are not. (I don't know where you are getting "usually" from.) I personally am not.
eudaimonia,
Mark
That's simply a contradiction inherent in capitalism,that the capitalists who steal value from the workers must ultimately realise it by selling it mostly to workers.
The old models work as good as ever,the social relations in capitalism are much the same as ever.
40%+ of american wealth i owned by less than the top 1%.
You are a pro-capitalist,capitalist are an exploitative class.eudaimonia said:
Sure,I'm not against completely free contracts,but this is not what happens in capitalism. As I said the majority are coerced by the threat of starvation(or the dole.) into selling their labour.
From those I've talked too,online(generally the only place you meet them for some reason.).
eudaimonia
Fellowship of Reason
NuGnostic said:
No, capitalists are not an exploitative class, except maybe in a fascist economy. You are imposing your leftist views here -- views I believe to be in error with respect to reality.
In this vein, business owners and managers are coerced by the threat of starvation into selling their leadership, vision, and know-how, and investors are coerced into investing their money into risky ventures where they may not see a return on their investments.
But I object to the view that coercion is truly involved. This would imply that you are "coerced" by your own nature as a living being. No one is forcing you to be biologically human. Employees are not being coerced to sell their labor any more than business owners are being coerced to sell employment because their spouses and children need to eat too.
Liberty is not freedom from human nature or the necessities of life.
Freedom always has a context, and that is human life, with all its needs and abilities. In a free society, where a handshake replaces a gun for mutual interaction, there is no coercion, even if you feel a strong motivation to take actions necessary to satisfy your survival needs.
eudaimonia,
Mark
Terrywoodenpic
Oldest Heretic
NuGnostic said:
As a life long liberal I disagree, as would a vast majority of european socialists,( who were never marxist anyway) The liberals in the UK and Europe were equally the targets of the original militant anarchists.
Terrywoodenpic
Oldest Heretic
NuGnostic said:
I thought I made the UK/European Position Quite clear.
There is a distinct difference in understanding of Liberalism Between us and the US.
Anarchism may have grown out of some parts of liberal thought, But it takes to extremes what should be in balance, and excludes much of what Government can do for the benefit of all, in the name of personal and business freedom.
Libertarianism, is often used, in the US, in place of Classical Liberalism, as the word LIberal has become unacceptable.
eudaimonia
Fellowship of Reason
Terrywoodenpic said:
To all modern U.S. "liberals", if you are done with the word "liberal" now, the classical liberals would like it back.
eudaimonia,
Mark
Booko
Deviled Hen
NuGnostic said:
"Materialistic" would be preferable to "vulgar" though, as it's more descriptive and less insulting.
That is, I often hear Libertarian views in the common U.S. fashion described as "I've got mine -- and too bad for you if you ain't got yours."
You're quite right -- there is quite a spectrum of libertarian views, of which the Libertarian Party in the U.S. only represents a very small slice.
Yes, I can see the similarities with Chomsky's views. While I'm no opponent of capitalism per se an unchecked capitalism becomes exploitative very quickly. (Incidentally, my religion's views on socio-economic ideas do not regard unchecked capitalism very highly either.)
One might say that is the problem with our current political institutions, in that they have been bought by those who prefer, well not unchecked capitalism, but rather, capitalism skewed in their favor. It's not just the political institutions that suffer. The effects are seen in a multitude of ways, right down to who gets what kind of health care and what sort of methods are readily available.
Well, some of us do know a fair bit. While this forum might have been set up with the U.S. Libertarian party in mind, there is no reason to restrict political discussions on RF generally that way.
If there is any difficulty with discussing Libertarian views on a wider scale here, we could always bring in the mod staff and see if we can come to a consensus that serves everyone.
If someone thinks we need to do that, I'd recommend posting something in Site Feedback.
Or we can just keep talking here...